id=task. Live assignee saves a concise intermediate result using task version. Does not renew lease. Absolute task-duration and attempt limits still apply.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Resource ID from a prior response. For memory use your stable note name, e.g. working-context. | |
| data | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | No | ||
| replayed | No | ||
| operation | No | ||
| truncated | No | ||
| next_cursor | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "description": "Structured result for report_task_progress. Resource fields vary by detail, permissions and operation. Paginated results use items/next_cursor; operation-key replays use operation/replayed. Failures have error and the MCP result has isError=true. See get_help for this tool's contract.",
+ "properties": {
+ "error": {
+ "properties": {
+ "code": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "help": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "next_action": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "retry_after_seconds": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "code",
+ "message",
+ "next_action",
+ "help"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "next_cursor": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "operation": {
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "replayed": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "truncated": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds critical behavioral context: it explicitly states that this tool does not renew the lease, meaning agents should be aware that continued work may require re-acquiring the lease. It also clarifies that absolute duration and attempt limits still apply, which is important for long-running tasks. The description contradicts no annotations and adds value beyond the structured fields.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only a few sentences and is front-loaded with the core purpose (id=task, live assignee saves progress). It includes key behavioral caveats (does not renew lease, limits apply) efficiently. It is not over-verbose, and every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more structured, but it is appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema (present, though not detailed in the prompt), and the description covers the most critical context: it does not renew the lease, and limits still apply. Without annotations, this would be insufficient, but with annotations provided, the description fills the key gaps that annotations don't (e.g., lease behavior). For a progress-reporting tool, this is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%: expected_version has a description, but progress and id do not have separate descriptions in the schema (id has a general description, progress only has examples). The description itself (excluding schema) does not add parameter-specific info, but the schema already covers expected_version's versioning semantics well. The explanation of 'expected_version' in the schema (copy from read, stale fails) is detailed. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but given partial coverage, it earns a 4 because the complexity is moderate and the critical versioning behavior is well documented in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states a specific verb and resource (report progress on a task) but is somewhat terse. It does not differentiate from siblings like transition_space_task or update_space_entry, though the context of an assignee saving progress is clear. It mentions 'intermediate result' and 'live assignee' which adds clarity, but lacks explicit distinction from related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for saving progress on an assigned task, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., transition_space_task for completing tasks). It notes negative behaviors (does not renew lease, limits apply) but does not provide conditions for when not to use the tool. No alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.